User talk:Fytcha/2021

Welcome Message
--Apisite (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Mein Akzent
Hallo Fytcha, ich komme aus der Nähe von Heilbronn in Baden-Württemberg. Eigentlich habe ich einen starken Akzent (eher Dialekt) aus Hohenlohe. Man kann es grob als schwäbisch einordnen, nur noch ein bisschen unverständlicher. Wieso? Hört man das so stark heraus? Ich habe mich an meinem besten Hochdeutsch versucht :'D


 * Ach so, das ist unerwartet! Nein, allzu stark nicht, aber was mir auffällt, ist, dass du die letzte Silbe eher als  aussprichst. Beim Vokal existiert ohnehin viel Variation in den verschiedenen Dialekten/Akzenten, aber das stimmlose S habe ich intuitiv dem alemanischen Sprachraum zugeordnet. :) Da habe ich mich wohl geirrt. Danke für deine Antwort.


 * PS.: Du hättest auch direkt auf deiner eigenen Talk-Page auf meine Frage antworten können, einfach direkt unter meiner Nachricht. --Fytcha (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello! You have been here for some while, reverting / reporting vandalisms and editing with prolificity, so would you consider becoming an administrator here? You would be able to speedy-delete obvious entries, so that these entries do not linger for hours. You are an industrious user, and the admin tools would stand you in good stead. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  17:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! Your interest honors me, thank you. I would accept a nomination for administratorship and I do think that it would be beneficial, especially when it comes to reverting and deleting obvious vandalism. --Fytcha (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have created the vote, please accept the nomination. Good luck! ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  12:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you a lot! I have gratefully accepted. Let's see how it goes. --Fytcha (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , I do not wish to influence your decision, but just would say that deleting votes created in good faith, is an unfair deed. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  18:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean no offense to Fytcha, but you probably both understand that the vote was doomed to fail. Thadh (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fytcha may not have known that. It was unfair to them; they may be a good candidate for adminship one day, but not yet. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll nominate you if you want. Equinox ◑ 02:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you deem me fit, I would humbly accept. Fytcha (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please fill in the acceptance bit here: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-12/User:Fytcha for admin. Equinox ◑ 03:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you! Fytcha (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You are now an admin. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz: Thank you Chuck! Fytcha (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Babel box
Since you have worked with Turkish, I think you should mention Turkish as well. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  15:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've thought about it but I've decided against it because 1. I don't speak it well enough to understand a talk page reply in that language and 2. I currently don't actively contribute in this language. If either of these two conditions changes, I'll make sure to add a Babel box for it! Fytcha (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, use tr-0 ! When you do not know a language actively, that’s the standard practice. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  18:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Lebensmittelskandal
Note the changes that the anon made here. When you make a link in the definition, you want it to point to an actual English entry that exists or should exist (i.e., that passes WT:CFI). And, of course, you should use a singular translation unless the word really is only plural. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you bring this up right now, I actually just wanted to start a new thread in the appropriate forum to ask the community about exactly this topic. Another user has made this change to another one of my articles, something I do not agree with. I am convinced that both as well as  ought to have their own standalone articles (seeing as we already have ); as such, the change presented is a really unhelpful one. Do you agree?
 * As for, there I am actually unsure about whether the English counterpart would survive a CFI discussion. Should I just have erred on the side of it not passing and me breaking up the link into smaller links? Fytcha (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WT:SOP, which hopefully answers most of your questions. I agree with the changes made in that diff, because a refugee crisis just seems to me to be any crisis involving refugees, and the European refugee crisis seems rather encyclopaedic to me (in that case, you might consider just linking directly to Wikipedia with ). Erring on the side of not passing is probably the better call if such an entry doesn't exist. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Juwelierkunst
thanks for renaming it. Oddly enough, you get more results for Juwelierkunst without -s- interfix in Google, and even in corpora. LinguisticMystic (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm actually having second thoughts about my move, maybe I acted a bit prematurely going off of my own knowledge too much (having only ever heard Juwelierskunst, never Juwelierkunst). I think both forms can be WT:ATTESTed. Should we create Juwelierkunst with ? Fytcha (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think people use both, I don't know which is the actual correct form.
 * https://www.germancorrector.com/ and https://languagetool.org/ says only Juwelierkunst is correct, Duden says both correct, (https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibpruefung-online) LinguisticMystic (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't trust those machine-learning-based tools too much. What's more, correct is mostly a synonym of used anyway. By that measure, they're both correct. Let's just create both articles and let one refer to the other, what do you think? Fytcha (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's include both. LinguisticMystic (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wild strawberry
Hello, I recently edited the wild strawberry page, but it now said you have edited it and my work is gone. Is there any reason? 156.155.60.62 21:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey! I assume you're right? I'm sorry but I had to revert your edit  because its contents are not in the scope of what Wiktionary (a dictionary) aims to provide. We usually don't have FAQs or health information listed in our entries. For that you might want to refer to Wikipedia . Fytcha (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK! No problem then
 * Yes, that is me,  Logan. Thank you for the quick response and being nice, I am new to this and just wanted to put some more things on but I'm fine if I may not:) 156.155.60.62 22:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that you just wanted to help in good faith, which is why I was sorry for having had to remove it. :( But hey, maybe you'll find something else to work on on Wiktionary? I see you're from South Africa, so maybe there's something in Wiktionary:Requested_entries_(Afrikaans) that you may want to work on? You can also just go around on random English articles and provide the Afrikaans translation there. In case you speak something else, there's with certainty also a category for that. Fytcha (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK I'll see what I can do
 * How do I reply on discussions because I don't think its good to make a new discussion every time, sorry 156.155.60.62 22:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There should be a button [ reply ] next to my comments. If not, you can press [ edit ] next to the topic "Wild strawberry" and add your reply in the source to the bottom. If you need any more help, don't hesitate to ask me! BTW, I would suggest you use your account because that way people know it's the same person behind the edits as your IP might change randomly. Fytcha (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK I finaly did it I'm logged in again, that was a strugle. OK,  its 1 am rn for me so god night. I'll try every thing tomorrow. Logan Robbertze (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for the wrong info. Thank you so much for fixing it! By the way, you might want to go through this category to fix more etymologies. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  12:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries! Thanks for linking me this category, I will have a look at it. Fytcha (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Moloch (No. 3?)
Hi Fytcha! I was in Graubünden a few months ago, and our Airbnb host had a small to-do folder, where it said: "Der Moloch ist ca. 20m links vom Hauseingang". Is it common usage or still premature for an additional definition? –Austronesier (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey! To be honest, I've only ever heard this word in the two senses listed at and the second thereof only infrequently. Idiotikon doesn't have an entry, although keep in mind the corresponding volume was printed in 1894. The Schweizerdeutsch Langenscheid doesn't have an entry either, though it is based on the Zürich-Dialekt which is markedly different from the  dialect continuum spoken in Graubünden. This dictionary from Untervaz also doesn't have it. I'm afraid I can't help you with this. :( Do you know what it referred to? Maybe a High Alemannic cognate would come to mind. Fytcha (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a joke or a dialectized pronunciation of a modern word, but usually these public garbage dumps are called Molok. –Austronesier (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Molok, somehow didn't think of that. Moloch definitely sounds like a joke (, simultaneously following ). A prominent characteristic of Graubünden Alemannic is replacing certain with, the other way around doesn't happen naturally, but maybe it's an established joke in Graubünden that I don't know about. I can ask a friend or some relatives from Graubünden next time I see them (I hope I won't forget). Fytcha (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"huge hunger"
Couldn't a real word like suffice? Equinox ◑ 23:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, let's move the translation box to whichever article you deem best. But note that the translations I've provided are colloquial and very common (not sure if this is the case for ravenousness). I've had it at ravenous hunger first. Fytcha (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If it's going to be a sum-of-parts translation hub then "ravenous hunger" is better than "huge hunger" (sounds more idiomatic). Equinox ◑ 23:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer ravenousness or ravenous hunger? Fytcha (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Eh, I've changed it to "ravenous hunger". One could argue that the state of feeling the hunger (the -ness) is different from the hunger itself, though it all gets a bit metaphysical. Equinox ◑ 23:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Yeah, "ravenous hunger" is probably a good choice. Fytcha (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lüüchzgi
Am trying to put in some of the common words that my kids use, most of which I can't find in any dictionaries…is this a very Züri word? It gets a fair few hits on Google, but I get the impression there are other terms elsewhere. Also, what exactly is going on with this ending? Ƿidsiþ 14:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I didn't/don't use this word ( or are more familiar to me) but it seems somewhat Zürcherisch to me. The first part of the word comes from, the second one is an uncommon noun ending (compare , , ) but I have trouble explaining what it really semantically expresses in isolation (curiously, 3 of the 4 examples at hand relate to children specifically). Maybe more examples will come to mind, if so, I'll come back to you on this topic! Fytcha (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I also thought of Chinzgi (my kids say for homework) – so it's basically just a complicated kind of diminutive suffix, then? It makes some crazy consonant clusters! Thinking about it, I guess -sgi is the basic ending, and I'm just getting confused by the -t part of the root-word being disguised in the -z-? Anyway thanks for having a look. It's so hard for me to tell if the stuff I hear around me be is incredibly widespread or super local, especially since where I live (Knonaueramt) has some weird local peculiarities compared to other parts of Zurich. Ƿidsiþ 15:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've used interchangeably with  back in the days (though with a short u). The theory about the ending being -sgi does have merit (Chind, lüüchte). I'm not entirely sure what the origin of  is but if it is from  as I suspect (see sense 7 in aufgeben), then the analysis with the ending already containing the  has some merits too. I'll try really hard to think of nouns containing -sgi with no t. :)
 * I'm not entirely sure about the analysis as a diminutive suffix (those are usually noun $$\rightarrow$$ noun, no?) considering that and  don't exactly have a diminutive-style relationship. Maybe some kind of (childish) collective suffix?  ≈ all the children,  ≈ all that which was given (as homework),  ≈ all that which,  ≈ all that which shines?
 * I'm unfortunately not familiar with the dialectal peculiarities across the different districts of Kanton Zürich, though I did ask a friend from Stadt Zürich about the word for what it's worth. He said he never heard Lüüchzgi before and he'd use one of my two alternatives too. Fytcha (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I guess so, I was assuming they were all from nouns (Huusuufgabe > Ufzgi, and Lüüchte(bändel?) > Lüüchzgi), where the -sgi- maybe just indicates some abbreviated indeterminate second element. But I guess they could be from verbs too. Ƿidsiþ 16:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see now what you meant. I personally think at least in the case of, the verb derivation is more likely than a derivation from.
 * Just a quick question: Are you sure about the neuter gender in ? I personally don't use the word and I don't think I've ever heard it before (though the meaning was not hard to guess) so my opinion doesn't count, however, the other -zgi words are masculine (apart from ) and as such my Sprachgefühl also suggested masculine here. In other words, did you ask your children about the gender specifically? :) Fytcha (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed it! Thanks. I think that was just me being stupid. Ƿidsiþ 17:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rollback at Bridge
That was was error. Sorry for any inconvenience that this may have caused. Kutchkutch (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries! I've already thought that was the case seeing that you rolled back your rollback immediately. Fytcha (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternate forms
Hey! Appreciate your work improving some of my previous entries. I really don't think we should move alternate forms to the Synonyms section – for me this is a completely separate thing. I think it's really important, especially with a language like Swiss German where there is so much dialectal variation, that we have a single lemma where all the information on different variations can be gathered together with a clear list of alternative recorded forms of the word. If some of these are moved to a Synonyms section then it creates the impression of (if not the creation of) new lemmas for the same item. Picking a page at random in the Sprachatlas, there is to me a clear difference between the case of Zäine, Zääne, Zaane, Zeene, Zoene, Zaale (which are all forms of the same word and should be in Alternative forms) and Choorb or Chratte, which are synonyms as used in the southwest. Don't you think? Ƿidsiþ 06:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The way I see it: For any given entry (let's take as an example), there are three classes of synonyms/forms:
 * Alternate spellings with the same pronunciation, e.g. Härdöpfl
 * Phonemic dialectal variations of the same "underlying" word, e.g. Härdepfel
 * Alternate dialectal terms, e.g. Gumel
 * Do you agree with this characterization/framework thus far? This is actually part of what I wanted to write into the about page. (There is some difficulty though: How much variation is allowed before a term of class 2 becomes class 3? For instance, is Hörpfel still class 2 despite deleting two phonemes? What about all the forms in amigs? Should we go by etymology? Because that is hard to ascertain in many cases.)
 * I think we agree that class 1 should be under  and class 3 under , right? So if I understand you correctly, the difficult to answer question is class 2. I don't feel particularly strongly about this one. Some arguments that I see can be made:
 * (For 2. to Alt.): This is what's already being done in other languages on Wiktionary, e.g. Romansch (see e.g. aviul).
 * (For 2. to Alt.): Synonyms is an L4 header so it might be inherently unsuited in cases where a word has multiple parts of speech (we would either have to make synonyms an L3 which is nonstandard, or repeat the information multiple times).
 * (For 2. to Syn.): Class 1 forms don't need a regional qualifier whereas class 3 forms do, so because class 2 terms need them too we should group class 2 and class 3 forms together (that is, both under the synonyms section) because then the reader has a better overview over the dialectal variations.
 * (For 2. to Syn.): As pointed out above, the cutoff for what constitutes a "different word" (i.e. class 3; as opposed to merely a dialectal pronunciation) is fuzzy. Putting these forms under synonyms would release us from this judgement because everything that's being pronounced differently would fall under synonyms either way. Conversely, under the alternate forms strategy, it will happen that we will have to think hard about whether certain forms belong under synonyms or alternate forms.
 * I would also be very open to the idea of introducing a new custom header for class 2 forms, something like  right under alternate forms for instance? I've seen you use   so I think you might be open to this idea, though I do think we should discriminate between class 2 and class 1 items. Let me know what you think about all of this! Fytcha (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I totally agree with your assessment of the different classes, and obviously class 2 will sometimes be decided on a case-by-case basis. But in general I definitely think they should be listed as Alternative forms.
 * I would list each class 1 variant on the same line ( etc) and add a new bulleted line for each set of class 2 variants. These lines could be followed by regional qualifiers (which where possible might be broad, "northeastern Switzerland", and sometimes will be canton-specific). These lines could also be preceded by a brief description of the class, e.g.:
 * [where Tretsche, Gwatzä, Flächti and their variants would be listed as "Synonyms"]
 * The exact distinctions might be different in different cases – sometimes you might distinguish between vowel quality, sometimes between vowel length, sometimes between choice of suffix, sometimes between other things depending on the type of variation involved. I don't know how practical this is but I think it would be nice to have some kind of labelling for each line to explain the principle that editors have used to group the forms.
 * In general I would agree that broadly Class 2 would be a matter of etymological relationship, although I imagine there are many cases where this is not so certain.
 * In my opinion it would be desirable to list the page-name lemma as one of the listed forms. This is why I tend to prefer "Forms" to "Alternative forms", because I feel it doesn't exclude the existing lemma as well. It's also suitably vague, so one could use it for regional variations as well as historical variations or whetever the case required. I think I was one of the first editors to use "Alternative forms" and "Forms" headers, but over the years one of these has become codified and the other one hasn't. But we could always make a case for doing something specific for this language. I feel like this all gets more complicated with every discussion, but I hope we are making some progress! Ƿidsiþ 14:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I will come back to this in a day or two. Just wanted to say two things for the time being: 1. (Re: the last sentence) I actually feel like it gets easier and easier with each new policy we hammer out because then I don't really have to think anymore while creating an entry, I just have to mechanically apply some rules. 2. Don't hesitate to ping me (ping in edit summaries work by using User:) whenever you want me to check a translation; I wouldn't even mind if you pinged me 20 times a day! --Fytcha (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Having slept and pondered over it now, I agree on putting class 2 entries at the top as forms (as opposed to synonyms), further I agree that the page-name lemma should occur within the forms list and I agree that this probably eliminates the possibility of using  as the header (so we should use  ).
 * Now on to the disagreement: I'm not 100% comfortable with this suggestion of yours: "I would list each class 1 variant on the same line ( etc) and add a new bulleted line for each set of class 2 variants." If at a later stage we add Dieth spellings (don't bother doing this manually btw, they can be machine-generated), I would like to format them as with a clickable link (this also applies to other normative orthographic systems) but then we'd have multiple lines of homophonic spellings followed by multiple lines of regional variants which would make the split between identically-pronounced and differently-pronounced forms murky, especially if the regional variants lack geographical data (which is very possible; of quite some words I know more regional variants than I could confidently place on a map).
 * What do you think about a principal L3 header  with two L4 sub-headers   (or Heterograph or just Identical pronunciation) and   (or Different pronunciation) (not sure on the exact names, I'm mainly just proposing the structure)? If you dislike the two sub-headers (admittedly, they are a bit clunky and much to type if one doesn't have a template to copy paste from at hand), we could also create a template along the lines of alt-hom as an alternative to alt for only the homophonic forms, which could render something like this:
 * (homophonic)
 * Another point is that there's many words for which the heterographs and variants have some overlap: has  both as a homophonic form  (i.e. people who pronounce it with a long soft G may nevertheless write it with ck (German influence)) as well as a regional variation (i.e. actually pronouncing it with kch) so it has to be listed twice. However, if we don't separate the two kinds clearly, it looks very much like a mistake (having one alternative form twice in the same section) which is an open invitation for people to edit the duplicate away, apart from it not looking very good visually in the first place.
 * To summarize: Some better discrimination between heterographs and variations is necessary in my opinion but I'm uncertain how to achieve that best. Fytcha (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not sure either. The overlap also occurs quite often in cases where a word can have either long or short vowel, but some writers do not distinguish long vowels in writing, so the short and long forms can be spelled the same – would they then appear on both lines? I think so, but I know what you mean about looking redundant. I'm not opposed to your proposal either, it sounds complicated but we would have to look at a real example I think to understand how it might work in practice. Ƿidsiþ 09:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a look at my article dangge. Feel free to play around with it / change it according to your liking. Fytcha (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely understand it! You list "dangge" under "different pronunciation", but that's also the pagename – is that right!? Also, what's the difference between the two separate lines of Different Pronunciation forms?
 * Incidentally, this entry raises many questions of pronunciation for me. For example. Is there a meaningful distinction between /d̥/ and /t/? I ask because the most common spelling of this word that I see is tanke. (I assume this has a different realisation from the  in a word like Theek.) Also I would have /ŋk/ rather than /ŋkː/ here, surely? Ƿidsiþ 17:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Re ""dangge" under "different pronunciation", but that's also the pagename": I did that because there is a set of speakers who write while pronouncing it differently than documented on the article, though I see how that can be confusing. Feel free to change it according to how see it fit, I really don't see how to do it best at the moment. :)
 * Re "Also, what's the difference between the two separate lines of Different Pronunciation forms?": I wanted to reflect the two degrees of freedom by two axes: the choice of realization of the final schwa is one axis, the choice of the exact plosive is the other one. See also chnuuschte where I organized it similarly (though there all spellings correspond a long u in pronunciation; the axis of < u>/ is a purely graphemic one).
 * Re "For example. Is there a meaningful distinction between /d̥/ and /t/?": This is just an IPA trick. IPA sadly doesn't have special diacritics to contrast fortis/lenis, but there are a small number of workarounds (which can be found here: ). I personally find the system of contrasting fortis/lenis using <>  most fit. The second workaround listed on Wiki is not good because Swiss German has consonant length distinction too. Many vowel pairs that are contrasted by voicedness in High German are voiceless in Swiss German and instead contrasted by fortis/lenis. See also . I will codify this in an Appendix on Wiktionary soon too.
 * Re "I ask because the most common spelling of this word that I see is tanke.": Yes, we should also create that article; it's the principal spelling of the pronunciation with initial (fortis); they are class 2 words for one another. BTW, in dialects where the word for "thanks" is pronounced with an initial  (as in mine for instance), "danke" <> "tanke" (=to fuel) is actually a minimal pair.
 * Re "Also I would have /ŋk/ rather than /ŋkː/ here, surely?": Hmmm, I personally definitely pronounce the verb as with a long k and the interjection possibly both ways (?), but I think all four combinations of  are used somewhere. I'll add it. Fytcha (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I generally prefer the first workaround but I am totally fine with using ; my question then is whether there is also any voiced, or if there is just a three-way distinction, ? (Same goes for the other stops.) This seems to be the case in Zürich, or at least that is how I interpret the fact that dictionaries distinguish between words beginning with ⟨t-⟩, ⟨d-⟩, and ⟨th-⟩ (also ⟨b-, p-, ph-⟩, ⟨g-, k-, gh-⟩).
 * As for the -gg-, it goes back to our discussion of what to lemmatise. The realisation of  is something I have been lemmatising as , but again this is something we should standardise and specify in WT:AGSW. Edit to add: I see that my dictionary distinguishes between the velars in, for instance, tängele, tanggig and tanke. Presumably, ? The difference between the last two is something I had never noticed, and which no description of the language that I've seen actually mentions. Ƿidsiþ 11:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, what is your dialect exactly? Where are you from? Ƿidsiþ 08:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I don't quite like the first system is because there are some voiced consonants and this system kind of opaques which they are; in other words, in the position of someone unfamiliar with the language, they would have to constantly keep in mind which of the consonants transcribed as voiced are really voiced and which ones are voiceless.
 * There's no voiced in any Swiss German dialect I'm aware of, same for,  and others. They are an instant giveaway for many High German natives :) Watch this at 1:23. I think there are  but the aspirated stop is less common than the other two; it occurs for instance in  or . I can't think of any occurrence of the other combinations (like ) but I wouldn't rule out their existence confidently just yet. Same for labials . Velar / uvulars are more complicated though.
 * As to the lemmatization: I thought we agreed that for velars/uvulars we just follow what is most common; did I understand that wrong? I would use the article dangge for, dange for and danke and/or dankche for . But yes, I really need to write that correspondence table in WT:AGSW.
 * I think (not sure if  is a thing;  has only  and ) all definitely exist but I'm not sure if within the same dialect (I only use the first and the last I believe).
 * My dialect is a slight variation of a general middle dialect (High Alemannic): You can roughly think of it as a mixture between St. Gallen and Graubünden, combining features of both. It's like GR (and differs from SG) in that: 1. it's fully rhotic with a trill  2. my (final?) schwas are lowered (to the point where I write them as ; though not completely merged with other a's like in some GR dialects). It's like SG (and differs from GR) in that: I do have initial fricatives. Like in many eastern Switzerland dialects,  and  are merged into  and  and  are merged into . So in a way, I lack the most prominent features of both St. Gallen city and Graubünden which leaves me with kind of a generic eastern Switzerland dialect. :) Though there is of course more variation on a word-by-word basis, this only covers my general phonology. --Fytcha (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Really interesting what you say about voiced stops – this is the kind of information I was desperately looking for when I first moved here, and which I couldn't find clear explanations of (and still can't!). Yes, follow what is most common to establish what the lemma form should be. But that would mean we lemmatise one specific form and have the others as soft redirects ("alternative form of", with pronunciation section etc). I think in my head I assumed that this would be the same across all words (i.e. we would lemmatise all instances of -ngg-, -nk-, -nkch- under the same spelling of ), but now I think about it I realise that's neither necessary nor desirable (since it would prioritise one dialect over others). It could be that we make different choices with different words, a bit like how some English words are lemmatised under British spellings and some under American, and the choice is essentially an arbitrary one. Ƿidsiþ 15:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this specific example. We are both doing similar things in the desire to split up all the Class 2 examples on to different lines, to show different…families (for want of a better word). I think we are agreed that this is often a good idea (though I imagine it won't be necessary with some simple words…it's a case-by-case basis of where it's necessary to make the information easier to understand). I personally think that "same pronunciation" and "different pronunciation" are too complicated to understand – I didn't really get what I was looking at, and I was expecting it! I still think that the Class 1 synonyms can be more usefully rolled together with Class 2. At first I thought perhaps we could distinguish between them by separation with commas (1)/semicolons (2):
 * …but this doesn't solve the problem that some forms will appear multiple times, which I think will always be confusing. In the end I really think the clearest way is to specify the schema in text somehow:
 * [ɪɴɪᴛᴀʟ ʟᴇɴɪs] ;
 * [ɪɴɪᴛᴀʟ ғᴏʀᴛɪs] ;
 * …or something like that. Regional labels could also be added here. It's possible to imagine some compound words that could have a hundred theoretical variants or more, but I think if we stick to practical use examples this is a pragmatic way of starting most entries. Ƿidsiþ 08:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah this sounds like a good idea too, I like it! However, a possible point of confusion/contention is: Which is the feature that we choose to distinguish the forms by? In other words, what keeps me from transposing the forms you've provided like:
 * [Final central] ;
 * [Final mid-front] ;
 * [Final back] ;
 * Though before we want to start to regulate this too and create a tie-breaker ranking for the features, I'd say we'll just go on a case-by-case basis. I could create some nice templates for this where we could just type something like ?anke; ?ankä or dank?; tank? which would then be expanded into these nice texts so that everything is uniform. Besides this, I'm certainly going to create templates for the cantons (much needed) to save typing, to standardize the form Wallis/Valais, Waadt/Vaud and possibly to provide little flag icons. Fytcha (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing would stop you doing that, and I think the choice will vary according to the word involved and the variation that exists. In general I would say that splitting it by the realisation of the infinitive ending is a bit unhelpful, since that variation is perfectly regular and expected across almost all examples. But you might definitely choose to split by vowel quality instead, in fact I expect that would be the normal way of doing it. But yes, case by case basis is best – I would rather be flexible and pragmatic rather than too programmatic about it. Canton templates sound great! Ƿidsiþ 15:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * [Final central] ;
 * [Final mid-front] ;
 * [Final back] ;
 * Though before we want to start to regulate this too and create a tie-breaker ranking for the features, I'd say we'll just go on a case-by-case basis. I could create some nice templates for this where we could just type something like ?anke; ?ankä or dank?; tank? which would then be expanded into these nice texts so that everything is uniform. Besides this, I'm certainly going to create templates for the cantons (much needed) to save typing, to standardize the form Wallis/Valais, Waadt/Vaud and possibly to provide little flag icons. Fytcha (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing would stop you doing that, and I think the choice will vary according to the word involved and the variation that exists. In general I would say that splitting it by the realisation of the infinitive ending is a bit unhelpful, since that variation is perfectly regular and expected across almost all examples. But you might definitely choose to split by vowel quality instead, in fact I expect that would be the normal way of doing it. But yes, case by case basis is best – I would rather be flexible and pragmatic rather than too programmatic about it. Canton templates sound great! Ƿidsiþ 15:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

im falschen Film sein
Great to have this entry, but I think we have to add to some more shades of meaning to it. Have you ever by accident attended a meeting of total crackpots (like conspiracy theorist) and felt you're there only "normal" person around, and later told a friend: "Da waren nur Bekloppte, ich habe gedacht, ich bin im falschen Film!"? So maybe the phrase rather expresses a clash of unreconcilable perceptions of reality, being "im falschen Film" not necessarily referring to the one that's disconnected from reality. –Austronesier (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right, that's a possible use that is not covered by my current definition. I wonder whether we should add a second sense or try and generalize the current one. Do you have any preference either way? Fytcha (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to think about more potential nuances and situations of usage first. If I can't find any that are significantly different from the two we have so far, we can think of a way how to generalize it. Eh, this reminds me of ! :) –Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey look, it's blue now! :)
 * I honestly can't think of any completely different senses right now. I would gloss the sense as used in "Ich kam mir wie im falschen Film vor." roughly as "to be in a bizarre situation that runs contrary to one's expectations" because I believe there's often an accompanying element of unexpectedness. Besides that, maybe there's also a nuance of startlement? Or maybe it is more often used in contexts where there's perceived injustice against the speaker? Those are the nuances that I could provide at present. Tell me if you agree! I've also read through some examples here. Fytcha (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On a first glance, your gloss looks fine me. But from the examples (including the you mention), it appears that the basic entry actually should by . –Austronesier (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're right; that was a mistake on my part. I'll fix it momentarily. Fytcha (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Gibel
What is the uumää in that quote, by the way? I thought maybe it was some Swiss version of umher (though I would normally expect umenand for this), with vaguely untraslatable effect, but I see you've translated it as ‘very lovely’. I'm not recognising it at all! Ƿidsiþ 08:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * is the standard intensifier (I was a bit confused by their choice to write it as one word though), is a central Switzerland word that I didn't know either so I've researched it and created an article. :) And yes you're right,  could be either  or . Fytcha (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Zurich phonology
FYI I found this online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/C5CD575D7E01BDA938BD133032E07CC5/S0025100306002441a.pdf/zurich_german.pdf, which is the best outline of the phonology here that I've seen. They opt for a similar fortis/lenis transcription as we have discussed, though differing in some other small ways. I'll use a version of this as the basis for the pronunciations here, and add a reference table here on Wiktionary somewhere. Ƿidsiþ 06:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for linking it; I'm actually familiar with this study and it does make some good points about the general system. It is in part what influenced me in transcribing lenis/fortis with the circle.
 * Small thing I want to point out: A few of the specifics they've presented within this study are not "normal" modern Zürich German, for instance for "teeth" instead of  (I failed to find even a single attestation for the former form).
 * I'll work on the gsw pronunciation tables today. I've also wanted to let you know that the reason why I haven't contributed as much to gsw as I could have is because I first want to get everything done in terms of policy and templates (some nice inflection templates would be a charm). Once that's done, I'll start churning out articles. :) Fytcha (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, my own work tends to follow my reading, so it really depends what books I have on the go at the time. I like that study because it rolls together öi and ö̀i as and also clarifies that for most people now  has merged with, which explains much better how my children speak, and why I was struggling to fit what I heard from them with the stuff I had read in dictionaries and grammars. When it comes to the fortis/lenis distinctions, my biggest problem is with the fricatives  and . These are never, as far as I can tell, distinguished in print (it's always just sch and ch) and, at least word initially and word finally, the distribution seems unpredictable. So I guess I will avoid transcribing those words except for examples that I know well. Ƿidsiþ 13:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am honestly a bit confused regarding the situation with <> . My ears are clearly trained to tell the difference and I could always provide the vowels I personally use (they are not interchangeable in my dialect but I'm not sure if  <>  are phonemic) but I can't provide you with too much wisdom about the areal distribution of these phonemes. To me it does seem however as though some of these variations have a northern Switzerland (if overly many  are ) or Bernese (if overly many  are ) ring to them.
 * As to the fricatives: This is a bit of a weird one to me as well to be honest. I am tempted to believe there's only phonemic <> and is a variation of the former. I would need to be convinced that there's a phonemic three-way distinction. Fytcha (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's the same thing – they transcribe these sounds as and  rather than  and  (in other words, they consider this another fortis/lenis distinction, rather than one of length). But either way, it's something that's invisible in print. Ƿidsiþ 14:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is however a three-way distinction between the plosives (the former two are contrasted by strength, the latter two by length). My point is that I am only familiar with  as contrasted by length, not by strength. And yes, writing opaques quite a lot about the fricatives unfortunately, probably because they're rendered with multigraphs. Fytcha (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, they don't recognise doubled consonants as such. Ƿidsiþ 16:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Work has started on Appendix:Alemannic German pronunciation which will be linked to by the "key" button in our IPA template. Fytcha (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far. You've put as an allophone of /p/, but under "Minimal Pairs" you have it as a phoneme in itself; I think it should, indeed, be listed as a phoneme. Ƿidsiþ 16:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is something I've wanted to ask you about:
 * How do we determine whether [pʰ] is phonemic or not? There's this chart but I don't quite understand the first branch.
 * What's the difference between /pʰ/ and /ph/? It's weird because pronouncing as [pʰɑkx] as well as [pɑkx] sounds okay,  pronouncing  sounds wrong without an h in there somehow and pronouncing  sounds wrong with an h (after the p). Not quite sure how to combine these points. Fytcha (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The first branch is about complementary distribution, which is how works in English – the first is found only in syllable onsets when followed by a stressed syllable, otherwise it's the second one. It's not like that in gsw; the use of the aspirated consonants is (as that ZDeutsch study puts it) "lexically determined", not morphologically determined. My understanding is that the aspirated consonants are typically only found in borrowings. With words like,  etc., the p- is etymologically a prefix so the two sounds remain separate. As for whether you actually consider something phonemic or not, it's an endless debate – I think it's better to split it how you've done it, between "broad" and "narrow" rather than talking about phonemes. But trying to do a chart for all of Switzerland will be tricky, because obviously different dialects have different overlapping phonemes anyway. Ƿidsiþ 16:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I have a better understanding now (though still not 100%). I'm also not sure about aspirated consonants typically only occurring in borrowings; quite a lot of initial-p words seem to be aspirated:, , , ... Your point is probably true for /t/.
 * So if I understand you correctly, you would transcribe aspiration of /t/ and /p/ in the broad transcription as well, right? If so, what is the reason? Not asking because I need convincing (I don't have any opinion on the matter) but because I hope I could reach better verdicts in the future for other phonemes if I know what your line of reasoning is. Fytcha (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically because I believe that most speakers of Swiss German conceptualise these sounds as separate independent sounds. In English, by contrast, most speakers simply do not hear or understand the difference between and ; they hear them both as just /p/. That is not the case in Swiss German, as evidenced by the fact that so many people spell these words as Phack, Thee etc. Ƿidsiþ 17:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Entries without a L2 language
It looks like you created some pages without a L2 language section. See here for a list, I think yours are the pages that start with c where you added a Determiner. JeffDoozan (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Very embarrassing on my part. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I will fix it immediately. Fytcha (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of edit
Why did you remove my edit to the definition of “reparationist”? ConcernedBlackAmericanCitizen (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The term is not exclusive to the US. There are reparationist movements in many different parts of the world. Your extension of the definition is however Americentric and quite needlessly so. Fytcha (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

attack helicopter
No point having a usex that's identical to a citation. Equinox ◑ 15:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that, my bad. Thanks for pointing out. Fytcha (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Would these be SOP?
Some pretty common chess terms that are missing are long castle/castle long/long castling and the equivalents with 'short'. Do you think these meet CFI? I think queenside/kingside is more likely to be seen as SOP. 70.175.192.217 22:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit on the verge about long/short: We can't really define as "(on the) queenside" as you can't say things like "a long attack" to mean a queenside attack, which proves that  doesn't have any chess-specific senses. Hence, long castling just means "of all legal castlings, the long one". It might be however that the metonymy therein (it's the travel distance of each participating piece that's long; the castling move as a whole has no well-defined dimensions) is enough to justify creation. I'd vote keep if such a term is created and subsequently proposed to RFD. Queenside/kingside castling are pretty clearly SOP in my opinion though. Fytcha (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)